Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

[sunshineray]

@Cyber sleuth @sunshineray (and everyone else reading)

I'm not trying to troll here or make anyone upset, I'm simply relaying information and the reasoning behind why such a charge is highly unlikely, and probably wouldn't escape a motion for summary judgment. It would be hard, if not impossible, to prove MW published the images with the required intent.

NEVER took you as a troll, Ive always enjoyed your posts. If you thought otherwise I'm sorry I contributed to that. It was unintentional. It's the subject matter that's concerning to me. Like I've mentioned before, the legal psychology of language can be used to help people squirm out of culpability. MHO

 

[sunshineray]

Possibly surprise DQ the D, round 2? JMO

No I believe it's for the new charges?

 

[sunshineray]

Since MW and his case of conversion is a topic, I think it's important to remember that someone in the chain of recipients killed themselves.

I don't know if that means anything in the legal sense, but it certainly tells me that simply being an innocent recipient or disseminating photos of 2 murdered girls, one nude, is downplaying the intention.


JMO

Yes, ANY type pleasure in recieving or disseminating IS pleasure felt by exploiting children, alive or dead. It led here to sorrow and tragedy revisited.

 

[justtrish]

Westerman: Motion to Dismiss (this case is re: Conversion charge related to RA case crime scene photos)

View attachment 486328
View attachment 486329

View attachment 486330

I find this pathetic and that is not even exactly how I feel, but I can't write that out here in this forum.

A man who was remorseful for what his actions caused would just say I did it and take the consequences instead of trying to find some technical way out of this by making a word salad about what it means to "exert control over property" and seriously that part about he didn't take the photos, but he took photos of the photos..

He had no right to do that, had no right to even view the photos let alone take a photo of them and share them with others.

 

[photographer4]

Since MW and his case of conversion is a topic, I think it's important to remember that someone in the chain of recipients killed themselves.

I don't know if that means anything in the legal sense, but it certainly tells me that simply being an innocent recipient or disseminating photos of 2 murdered girls, one nude, is downplaying the intention.


JMO

That same person who killed himself after receiving the images also refused to meet with police to discuss the matter and is purported to have remarked something to the effect of (loosely paraphrased as I don't have the quote in front of me) - If I just come clean, this would all go away.

So what was he thinking about coming clean about? To whom? Why did he refuse a meeting with police? Almost a shame he didn't wait to see that MW was only charged with a basic theft and nothing more serious. I wonder if that may have swayed his decision to kill himself or not?

I think there was an end goal here by the Defense and or MW. I'm doubtful that he just took photos of the evidence and forwarded them along for his own thrills. Did he hope to shake the tree to see what fell out? Was this being used to rattle possible players into coming forward? Was this the play to make sure more info gets to the public ahead of trial - even at the expense of the reputations of the lawyers? Something isn't right here. I do not believe (yet) that MW was just being a jerk and decided to screw around with the crime scene photos / trial / lawyers reputations etc without some bigger goal in mind.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I find this pathetic and that is not even exactly how I feel, but I can't write that out here in this forum.

A man who was remorseful for what his actions caused would just say I did it and take the consequences instead of trying to find some technical way out of this by making a word salad about what it means to "exert control over property" and seriously that part about he didn't take the photos, but he took photos of the photos..

He had no right to do that, had no right to even view the photos let alone take a photo of them and share them with others.

I don’t think there is remorse. I don’t think we would even know it had happened if it weren’t for TMS reporting to authorities.
I think MW and crew all went into cya mode once TMS said they were going to authorities.
I still believe MW had ongoing access from AB and was sharing over a period of time to other unauthorized individuals.
I think MW expected protection by AB but it was not there because it would open AB’s firm up to serious liability. Theft made a good cover that might be hard to prove, as it turns out.
I think the middle man may have faced more serious charges since the material was distributed by him across state lines, perhaps triggering federal involvement or harsher out of state CSAM laws.
I wonder if we will ever see evidence on what context was used around the sharing of this material. The whole thing disgusts me and could have been avoided if proper measures had been in place by defense.
AMO

 

[Betty P]

I would like to see the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance video where it is claimed according to the PCA that at 1:27pm, a vehicle resembling Richard Allen's 2016 Ford Focus is driving towards the old CPS building.

It is interesting that Richard Allen remembered to avoid being seen by the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance cameras if he was the person seen as muddy and bloody walking along 300 N back towards the old CPS building, but forgot about the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance video when it came to his vehicle driving by. Even if he had kept on walking along 300 N, the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera would only have gotten a side profile of him.

My complete guess is that Richard Allen did not drive the 2016 Ford Focus hatchback when he went to speak with the conservation officer. That would at least make sense.

All of this will be revealed at trial. Guessing about what it might look like is, well, just a guess. We'll find out when the trial begins. They'll probably have maps and overhead photos of the area, etc.

We also have to keep in mind that when RA saw the conservation officer and spoke with him, LE wasn't yet aware of the video or, if they were, they hadn't had time to examine it. IIRC, RA's discussion with the conservation officer was in the early days of the investigation.

 

[Betty P]

I think there was an end goal here by the Defense and or MW. I'm doubtful that he just took photos of the evidence and forwarded them along for his own thrills. Did he hope to shake the tree to see what fell out? Was this being used to rattle possible players into coming forward? Was this the play to make sure more info gets to the public ahead of trial - even at the expense of the reputations of the lawyers? Something isn't right here. I do not believe (yet) that MW was just being a jerk and decided to screw around with the crime scene photos / trial / lawyers reputations etc without some bigger goal in mind.

I agree that there was a bigger goal in mind - to get the photographic evidence out in front of the public well before the trial, then use gossip about it to promote their crazy red herring theories. They wanted to render the evidence useless at trial and keep battles over it dragging out as long as possible. They don't care about the victims or families. It's all about making the trial last as long as possible so they can earn as much money as possible. Probably hope to cash in later selling books, movies, etc.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

@StarryStarryNight

In answer to your question, those states which word their statutes this way contemplate situations such as this:

• Mom takes picture of kid in bath (used to be popular for some odd reason)
• Mom sends this picture to Uncle Cletus because it is "cute"
• Unbeknownst to Mom, Uncle Cletus is a massive pedo and derives pleasure from pic.
• Is Mom a CSAM pedo now also?

This isn't really analogous to this situation, but the reasoning is the same. Mom wasn't sending pic as "sexual content" therefore not CSAM possession/distribution.

The laws are changing regarding some of these issues. I expect a lot of changes, especially now that AI fake images are becoming prevalent (which Indiana already contemplates in their statutes).

I understand that and thanks for bringing that angle up. It is important.
Perhaps they need to regard CSAM images as former Justice Potter Stewart said about obscenity, to paraphrase, I’ll know it when I see it.
I think we all know CSAM images when we see it.
Anyway, legal details regarding MW have nothing to do with getting to a trial for Libby and Abby. What he did was indefensible but they can’t charge or convict him of anything more than what is in Indiana law. Personally, I’m tired of hearing about him. The only punishment he can really receive is to become a pariah. So be it, let’s get to the trial that matters.


Edit: typo

 

[FromGermany1]

That same person who killed himself after receiving the images also refused to meet with police to discuss the matter and is purported to have remarked something to the effect of (loosely paraphrased as I don't have the quote in front of me) - If I just come clean, this would all go away.

So what was he thinking about coming clean about? To whom? Why did he refuse a meeting with police? Almost a shame he didn't wait to see that MW was only charged with a basic theft and nothing more serious. I wonder if that may have swayed his decision to kill himself or not?

I think there was an end goal here by the Defense and or MW. I'm doubtful that he just took photos of the evidence and forwarded them along for his own thrills. Did he hope to shake the tree to see what fell out? Was this being used to rattle possible players into coming forward? Was this the play to make sure more info gets to the public ahead of trial - even at the expense of the reputations of the lawyers? Something isn't right here. I do not believe (yet) that MW was just being a jerk and decided to screw around with the crime scene photos / trial / lawyers reputations etc without some bigger goal in mind.

bbm
If only we would know the goal .....

 

[sunshineray]

That same person who killed himself after receiving the images also refused to meet with police to discuss the matter and is purported to have remarked something to the effect of (loosely paraphrased as I don't have the quote in front of me) - If I just come clean, this would all go away.

So what was he thinking about coming clean about? To whom? Why did he refuse a meeting with police? Almost a shame he didn't wait to see that MW was only charged with a basic theft and nothing more serious. I wonder if that may have swayed his decision to kill himself or not?

I think there was an end goal here by the Defense and or MW. I'm doubtful that he just took photos of the evidence and forwarded them along for his own thrills. Did he hope to shake the tree to see what fell out? Was this being used to rattle possible players into coming forward? Was this the play to make sure more info gets to the public ahead of trial - even at the expense of the reputations of the lawyers? Something isn't right here. I do not believe (yet) that MW was just being a jerk and decided to screw around with the crime scene photos / trial / lawyers reputations etc without some bigger goal in mind.

Well his affidavit sure sounded like he was saying he was the lone jerk, IMO. But now he's changed that and now he's not a jerk at all.

 

[Boxer]

Only the 320 has an option for .40 cal. (It has several other options including 9mm and .45 ACP.). The 365 comes in 9mm and .380. At any rate, RA’s was the P226.

SIG Sauer P320 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

SIG Sauer P365 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

FWIW:

The 5 Best-Selling Handguns of 2017 | The Motley Fool

Even though sales across the industry are down, some models are still proving extra popular with gun buyers.

www.fool.com

The actual amount of the production, the model of the gun, would be something to consider, IMO. The testimony on the ballistic science behind those markings is going to be very interesting also.

I would like to see the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance video where it is claimed according to the PCA that at 1:27pm, a vehicle resembling Richard Allen's 2016 Ford Focus is driving towards the old CPS building.

It is interesting that Richard Allen remembered to avoid being seen by the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance cameras if he was the person seen as muddy and bloody walking along 300 N back towards the old CPS building, but forgot about the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance video when it came to his vehicle driving by. Even if he had kept on walking along 300 N, the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera would only have gotten a side profile of him.

My complete guess is that Richard Allen did not drive the 2016 Ford Focus hatchback when he went to speak with the conservation officer. That would at least make sense.

I think RA walked to see the Conservation Officer.
I believe the grocery parking lot where they met is basically right next to the CVS where he worked.

 

[somequestions]

I think RA walked to see the Conservation Officer.
I believe the grocery parking lot where they met is basically right next to the CVS where he worked.

I wonder if the conservation officer asked Richard Allen what vehicle he drove to the Monon High Bridge on February 13th, 2017?

There does not seem to be any way that LE and the prosecution do not have someone on the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance tape walking in front of the Hoosier Harveststore along 300 N either sometime a little before 3:57pm or a little after 3:57pm depending where on 300 N the witness(who was driving) saw the muddy and bloody person. I think that either LE left that information out of the PCA or it was a typo omission.

Maybe Richard Allen walked back into the woods at the Mears entrance to get back on the trail for the rest of the walk back to his car from 3:57pm to approximately 4:07pm as long as no one was on that stretch of the trail during that time between the Mears farm entrance and the old CPS building?

If that is not the case, then there has to be someone on the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance video walking in front of it around the time (3:57pm) the witness saw the muddy and blood person walking along 300 N.

 

[Boxer]

I wonder if the conservation officer asked Richard Allen what vehicle he drove to the Monon High Bridge on February 13th, 2017?

There does not seem to be any way that LE and the prosecution do not have someone on the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance tape walking in front of the Hoosier Harveststore along 300 N either sometime a little before 3:57pm or a little after 3:57pm depending where on 300 N the witness(who was driving) saw the muddy and bloody person. I think that either LE left that information out of the PCA or it was a typo omission.

Maybe Richard Allen walked back into the woods at the Mears entrance to get back on the trail for the rest of the walk back to his car from 3:57pm to approximately 4:07pm as long as no one was on that stretch of the trail during that time between the Mears farm entrance and the old CPS building?

If that is not the case, then there has to be someone on the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance video walking in front of it around the time (3:57pm) the witness saw the muddy and blood person walking along 300 N.

His notes were pretty sad.

 

[Megnut]

I wonder if the conservation officer asked Richard Allen what vehicle he drove to the Monon High Bridge on February 13th, 2017?

There does not seem to be any way that LE and the prosecution do not have someone on the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance tape walking in front of the Hoosier Harveststore along 300 N either sometime a little before 3:57pm or a little after 3:57pm depending where on 300 N the witness(who was driving) saw the muddy and bloody person. I think that either LE left that information out of the PCA or it was a typo omission.

Maybe Richard Allen walked back into the woods at the Mears entrance to get back on the trail for the rest of the walk back to his car from 3:57pm to approximately 4:07pm as long as no one was on that stretch of the trail during that time between the Mears farm entrance and the old CPS building?

If that is not the case, then there has to be someone on the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance video walking in front of it around the time (3:57pm) the witness saw the muddy and blood person walking along 300 N.

Unless he adjusted his path, went for cover, spooked by traffic.

 

[Emma Peel]

Depositions scheduled in contempt matter surrounding Delphi suspect’s defense team

(FYI: As docketed ... this Friday - March 1, LE depositions on contempt hearing related to RA case are scheduled ... )

 

[girlhasnoname]

Looks like Judge Gull is not messing around and intends to have R&B answer to the Contempt charges (based on the way it was charged in the document, it looks like indirect Contempt charges to me). I full well believe they should, their actions have been contemptuous during this entire case IMO.

If it were the State I'd expect the same, so this is not about bias. It's about being accountable for your actions.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

His notes were pretty sad.

I really do want to hear how that whole exchange went down. There was enough there for DD to make a note to check with the girls RA said he had passed on the Freedom Bridge.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I've never been that convinced MW committed a crime.

Because the information was given to him freely by the defense? If not, I don't see how he didn't commit a crime.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

@StarryStarryNight

In answer to your question, those states which word their statutes this way contemplate situations such as this:

• Mom takes picture of kid in bath (used to be popular for some odd reason)
• Mom sends this picture to Uncle Cletus because it is "cute"
• Unbeknownst to Mom, Uncle Cletus is a massive pedo and derives pleasure from pic.
• Is Mom a CSAM pedo now also?

This isn't really analogous to this situation, but the reasoning is the same. Mom wasn't sending pic as "sexual content" therefore not CSAM possession/distribution.

The laws are changing regarding some of these issues. I expect a lot of changes, especially now that AI fake images are becoming prevalent (which Indiana already contemplates in their statutes).

I do appreciate your legal input, but IMO there is no way in the world an innocent picture of a live and playful child being innocently sent by a parent to a family member in the bath compares to the pictures of two deceased, brutally murdered, (one nude) young girls being distributed to others and the SM pariah on the internet. I'm sorry, it just isn't in the same realm of analogy.

MW knew exactly the intent of his actions, it wasn't innocent or cute. Would he have sent those picture out if they were of his own murdered daughters?

The laws can't change fast enough for me. It's disgusting and disturbing on so many levels.

MOO